Tripura High Court
Sri Tarani Das vs The State Of Tripura on 28 August, 2018
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Arindam Lodh
Page - 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.315 of 2014
Sri Tarani Das,
son of Sri Sridam Chandra Das,
resident of Shibnagar Mosjid Road,
P.O. Agartala College, West Tripura- 799004.
..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary,
Agriculture Department, Government of Tripura,
P.O. Secretariat-799010, New Secretariat Complex,
Agartala, District- West Tripura.
2. The Secretary, Finance Department,
Government of Tripura, P.O. Secretariat-799010, New
Secretariat Complex, Agartala, District- West Tripura.
3. The Director, Department of Agriculture,
Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala-799001,
Agartala, District- West Tripura.
4. The Under Secretary, Agriculture Department,
Government of Tripura, P.O. Secretariat-799010, New
Secretariat Complex, Agartala, District- West Tripura.
5. Sri Bimal Das, Assistant Director, THAS Gr.IV.
.....Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. CS Sinha , Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAY RASTOGI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
ORDER
28.08.2018 In substance, the grievance of the petitioner is that he along with the impleaded respondents no. 5 and 6, all the three were appointed on the recommendation of the Tripura Public Service Commission to the post of Group-V of Tripura Agricultural Services (Group B gazette)(Agricultural officer/ Fodder Officer) under the Department of Agriculture, Page - 2 of 3 Department of Welfare for Schedule Tribes/Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Tripura in the scale of 2100- 4530 vide order dt. 08.11.1993, but both the two incumbents were granted the benefit of Assured Carrier Progression-II(ACP- II) vide order dt. 05.09.2011 and 18.10.2011 respectively, but without any justification, the petitioner, who was similarly situated, the benefit of ACP-II has not been extended to him. This fact has been stated specifically in paragraph 8 of the writ petition.
[2] On the last date of hearing, when the matter came before this court, taking note of the submission made, under order dt. 08.08.2018, we directed the respondents to seek instructions and inform as to what would be the justification for which the benefit of ACP-II has not been extended to the petitioner, more so when the incumbents who were similarly situated and appointed alongwith him vide order dt. 08.11.1993, benefit of ACP-II has extended to both of them. [3] Counsel for the respondent on instructions submits that this fact is not disputed that the other two incumbents who were similarly situated benefit of ACP-II to both of them have been extended by the orders dt. 05.09.2011 and 18.10.2011 respectively. In the absence of any justification being tendered by the respondents what, being contended by the petitioner deserves acceptance and became entitled for the benefit of ACP- II from the date granted to the respondents no. 5 and 6 respectively.
Page - 3 of 3 [4] Consequently, the writ petition succeeds & hereby allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of ACP-II to the petitioner w.e.f. the date on which the ACP-II has been granted in favour of Sri Sudhriti Das and Sri Bimal Das, the respondents no. 5 and 6 respectively with all consequential benefits and after fixation in the pay scale of ACP-II, arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within two months. No costs.
(ARINDAM LODH),J (AJAY RASTOGI),CJ Saikat